Abstract
This discussion of the sources of Reading Recovery presents the results of an investigation into whether or not this relatively costly, tutoring remedial reading program, designed for primary-grade students, is based on relevant experimental evidence as to how these students best learn to read. The general finding of the study was that Reading Recovery principles and practices are not based firmly on the experimental evidence that supports the so-called “bottom-up” model of children's reading development. To the contrary of Reading Recovery, Marie Clay, favors so-called “top-down” principles and models of reading instruction. Reading Recovery uses several empirically unverified procedures to decide which students are admitted to its tutoring sessions, to determine the progress in reading rehabilitation these tutees make, and to judge when students should be discontinued from Reading Recovery tutelage. The details on the shortcomings of Reading Recovery are judged to be prima facie evidence that it may not be a cost-effective educational innovation. Further authentication in that regard, it is pointed out, are recent studies by disinterested researchers who report that: (a) the initial successes of Reading Recovery in helping disabled readers overcome their handicap are only temporary in nature, and (b) the majority of the precepts and procedures prescribed for Reading Recovery by Marie Clay reflect a top-down orientation to reading development, as does the Whole Language (WL) philosophy of reading attainment. Educators and school boards should take this orientation of Reading Recovery under advisement when considering its purchase, it is urged.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Abbott, S.P., Reed, E., Abbott, R.D., & Berniger, V.W. (1997). Year-long balanced reading/writing tutorial: A design experiment used for dynamic assessment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 249–263.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Adams, M.J. (1991). Why not phonics and whole language? In Orton Dyslexia Society (Ed.), All language and the creation of literacy (pp. 40–53). Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.
Adams, M.J. & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the "Great Debate." American Educator, 19(2), 7, 10–20.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Barnes, B.B. (1997), But teacher you went right on: A perspective on Reading Recovery. Reading Teacher, 50, 284–292.
Beck, I. & Juel C. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read. American Educator, 19(2), 8; 21-25; 39-42.
Blachman, B.A. (1989). Phonological awareness and word recognition. In A. G. Kamhi & H.W. Catts (Eds.), Reading Disabilities (pp. 133–158) Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Bracy, G.W. (1995). Reading Recovery: Is it effective? Phil Delta Kapan, 76, 493–494.
Brady, S. & Shankweiler, D. (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al. (1996). Teaching reading. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Carpenter, B. (Ed.). (1996). Reading Recovery task force report. San Diego, CA: San Diego County Office of Education.
Center, Y., Whendall, K., & Freeman, L. (1992). Evaluating the effectiveness of Reading Recovery: A critique. Educational Psychology, 12, 263–273.
Center, Y., Whendall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An experimental evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240–263.
Chall, J. S. (1967; 1983) Learning the read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J.S. (1995). Ahead to the Greeks. Issues in Education, 1,83–85.
Chapman, J.W., Tunmer, & W.E., Prochnow, J. E. (1998, April). Reading Recovery in relation to language factors, reading self-perceptions, classroom behavior difficulties and literacy achievement: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Clay, M.M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1993a). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collins, J.D. & Stevens, L.M. (1997). Does Reading Recovery work? American School Board Journal, 184(6), 38–39.
Dudley-Marley, C. (1996). Whole language, assumptions, and ideology: A response to Groff. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 12, 227–236.
Dudley-Marling, C. & Murphy, S. (1997). A political critique of Reading Recovery programs: An example of Reading Recovery. Reading Teacher, 50, 460–468.
Edelsky, C. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher, 19(8). 7–11.
Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 323–358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fincher, G. E. (1988). Reading Recovery and Chapter 1: A three-year comparative study. Canton, OH: Canton City Schools.
Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on the Great Debate: Code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24, 276–292.
Glynn, T., Crooks, T., Bethune, N., Ballard, K., & Smith, J. (1989). Reading Recovery in context. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Department of Education.
Goswanmi, U. & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, England: Erlbaum.
Gough, P. B., Ehri, L., & Treiman, R. (Eds.). (1992). Reading acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Groff, P. (1983). A test of the utility of phonics rules. Reading Psychology, 4, 217–225.
Groff, P. (1994). Differing views on context cues. Interchange, 25, 171–181.
Groff, P. (1995). Reading Recovery: Educationally sound and cost-effective? Effective School Practices, 13(1) 65–69.
Groff, P. (1996a). An analysis of the empirical validity of Reading Recovery. In B. Carpenter (Ed.), Reading Recovery task force report (pp. 80–97). San Diego, CA: San Diego County Board of Education.
Groff, P. (1996b). Whole language. It's a matter of a wrong assumption. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 12, 217–226.
Groff, P. & Seymour, D. Z. (1987). Word recognition: The why and the how. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Grossen B., Coulter, G., & Ruggles, B. (1996). Reading recovery: An evaluation of benefits and costs. Effective School Practices, 15(3), 6–24.
Harris, A.J. & Sipay, E.R. (1980). How to increase reading ability. New York, NY: Longman.
Harrison, B., Zollner, J., & Magill, B. (1996). The hole in the whole language. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27(5), 6–18.
Hiebert, E.H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23(9), 15–25.
Honig, B. (1996). Teaching our children to read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hoover, W.A. & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
Hoover, W.A. & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). The components of reading. In G B. Thompson, W. E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes (pp. 1–19). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Iverson, S. & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112–120.
Jorm, A.F. & Share, D. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103–147.
Klare, G.R. (1984). Readability. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681–744), New York, NY: Longman.
Liberman, I.Y. & Liberman, A.M. (1990). Whole language vs. Code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51–77.
Moustafa, M. (1997). Beyond traditional phonics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Nicholson, T. (1989). Research note: A comment on Reading Recovery. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 24(1), 95–97.
Ohio Department of Education (1995). Longitudinal study of Reading Recovery, 1990-91 through 1993-94. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Orton Dyslezia Society (Ed.). (1991). All language and the creation of literacy. Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University.
Pesetsky, D., & Melvold, J., et al. (1995, July 14). Letter to Robert V. Antonucci, Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts Department of education from forty professors of linguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive science, psychology, and neurology.
Pressley, M. & Menke, D.J. (1994). State-of-the-science primary-grade reading instruction or whole language? Educational Psychologist, 29, 211–215.
Rasinski, T. (1995). On the effects of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 264–270.
Robinson, V. (1989). Some limitations of systematic adaptation: The implementation of Reading Recovery. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 24,35–45.
Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Carey, J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995). Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention programs. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 773–800.
Sensenbaugh, R. (1994). Effectiveness of Reading Recovery programs. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 73–76.
Shanahan, T. (1987). Review of The early detection of reading difficulties. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 117–119.
Shanahan, T. & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for atrisk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996.
Share, D.L., & Stanovich, K.E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of a acquisition. Issues in Education, 1, 1–57.
Smith, C. B. (Ed.). (1994). Whole language: The debate. Bloomington, IN: EDINFO, Indiana University.
Smith, C.J. (1993). Problems with reading. Support for Learning, 8(4), 139–145.
Smith, F. (1989). Overselling literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 353–359.
Spieigel,(1995). A comparison of traditional remedial programs and Reading Recovery: Guidelines for success in all programs. Reading Teacher, 49, 86–96.
Stahl, S.A. & Miller, P.D. (1989). Whole language and language experience approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 87–116.
Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Romance and reality. Reading Teacher, 47, 280–291.
Templeton, S. & Bear, D.R. (Eds.). (1992). Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson, G.B., Tunmer, W.E., & Nicholson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Reading acquisition processes. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Truch, S. (1991). The missing parts of whole language. Calgary, Canada: Foothills Educational Materials.
Velluntino, R.R. & Scanlon, D.M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 33, 321–363.
Wake County Public School System. (1995). Evaluation report: WCPSS Reading Recovery 1990-94. Raleigh, NC: Wake County Public School System.
Wasik, B.S. & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179–200.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Groff, P. A Critical Analysis of the Sources of Reading Recovery: An Empiricist Perspective. Interchange 35, 31–58 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INCH.0000039021.15493.8d
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INCH.0000039021.15493.8d